Can moderating just stay as it is

[SorryDude]

I'm sick of moderating going from good to crap, good to crap, good to crap. The other day someone posted in a thread 'I think you have the wrong section' and they got a mod edit 'please leave moderating to moderators' they're clearly just trying to be nice by letting the user know they posted in the wrong section, stop getting all defensive they aren't trying to take your job. I just posted in a SPAM thread messing around 'omg that image just avoided the filter!!'. First of all I want to say it's such a ridiculous rule and secondly it should only be used if a user is actually trying to impersonate a moderator, if the moderator in question actually read my post properly I just stated the obvious, 'the image just avoided the filter' I didn't tell the user it wasn't allowed or warn them in anyway. Can you please sort out the rules because things like this is what makes the department look horrible.

Im on your side..

[GommeInc]

The "Leave the moderation to the moderators" rule needs tweaking. If someone is being helpful, they are simply being helpful. Pretending to be a moderator or doing the duties of a moderator should only be a rule violation if they are asserting any sort of power upon a person. Saying "This might be the wrong forum" isn't authoritative and is simply being helpful. If certain moderators can't get over their ego trips then more fool them, they should be sacked as I'm fairly certain new and old members would rather be part of a helpful community than one that's a being controlled as if it was a police state.

As for posts saying "OMG that video/image/post has an unfiltered word", they are also not a rule violation, as it's more a statement of fact than anything. If a post actually has an uncensored word, then they are simply posting fact and edit, if anything, should be on the person's post who actually violated a real rule. You wouldn't even do it for posts which don't have filtered words, you would do what is expected and speak directly using an @ tag or quote saying "No it isn't" like any other member would, as moderators are simply just members. If moderators don't know how to speak to people like they would a member - sack 'em.

Red mod warnings are not meant to be seen as moderators doing their duties or to show that the forum has any sort of moderation - they're incredibly ugly and say more about the behaviour of the forum staff and community spirit than the member in question i.e. not very good when viewing the forum as a guest or a new member. Less warnings are a must. If you want to have a rage at someone, PM them in private rather than put a blight on the forum. Use them when needs must e.g. swearing or posts that warrant an edit to the content. If the content is untouched, leave the entire post untouched - especially when people are not breaking the rules.

/rant - someone mentioned me so my 2 pence

[Chippiewill]

"Leave the moderation to the moderators" isn't really what the rules themselves are getting at (You don't exactly need a rule just for this, I think a moderator will not think twice if someone goes around pretending to be help desk staff on the forum so Moderators hardly need an exception to the fairly obvious discretion), I think the issue that arise from the posts which the rules are trying to prevent are:
- Accusing someone of breaking the rules (Even though they may not have)
- Giving people false information by accident
- Making pointless posts

Now, when you think about it, telling someone they've posted in the wrong forum isn't actually in itself helpful, since at best they'll make another thread in the right forum where maybe they'll get more replies, although I doubt it. Whereas if you just reported the post a moderator would have been able to move it fairly quickly anyway so the forum isn't being spammed and you haven't made a pointless post that doesn't help them all that much.

Now an obviously joking context spam doesn't actually do any of the above and should really be allowed as long as it's really obvious and they haven't actually broken the rule in question (Since that brings ambiguity about the nature of the post).

The only case where I believe that telling someone they've actually broken the rules really makes sense is if they've made another thread on a topic and you're telling them the location and adding information that makes sense merged into the thread which is the only one which under clarification is now being allowed. Which makes sense.

-

Really you could actually scrap the "leave moderating to moderators" rule and enforce all of it's constituent parts as parts of the other rules (Pointless posting, rude to other users etc.).

[Grig]

The "Leave the moderation to the moderators" rule needs tweaking. If someone is being helpful, they are simply being helpful. Pretending to be a moderator or doing the duties of a moderator should only be a rule violation if they are asserting any sort of power upon a person. Saying "This might be the wrong forum" isn't authoritative and is simply being helpful. If certain moderators can't get over their ego trips then more fool them, they should be sacked as I'm fairly certain new and old members would rather be part of a helpful community than one that's a being controlled as if it was a police state.

As for posts saying "OMG that video/image/post has an unfiltered word", they are also not a rule violation, as it's more a statement of fact than anything. If a post actually has an uncensored word, then they are simply posting fact and edit, if anything, should be on the person's post who actually violated a real rule. You wouldn't even do it for posts which don't have filtered words, you would do what is expected and speak directly using an @ tag or quote saying "No it isn't" like any other member would, as moderators are simply just members. If moderators don't know how to speak to people like they would a member - sack 'em.

Red mod warnings are not meant to be seen as moderators doing their duties or to show that the forum has any sort of moderation - they're incredibly ugly and say more about the behaviour of the forum staff and community spirit than the member in question i.e. not very good when viewing the forum as a guest or a new member. Less warnings are a must. If you want to have a rage at someone, PM them in private rather than put a blight on the forum. Use them when needs must e.g. swearing or posts that warrant an edit to the content. If the content is untouched, leave the entire post untouched - especially when people are not breaking the rules.

/rant - someone mentioned me so my 2 pence

This post probably made the most sense in this thread. Spot on.

As I mentioned before, it's silly that there are rules like the wrong section rule, when a person was just suggesting it was the wrong section. It's a forum for free flowing discussion. Obviously with logical rules, but now with rules it seems a bit too controlled. Moderation does not and should not equate to this police state mentality.

Sadly, I've not seen someone for a while who was truly wanting to reform the forum. More threads about moderation errors have been popping up recently and this too needs to be addressed as it doesn't look good.


Although sadly, none of this will happen.

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't mind if users want to tell others that they have posted in the wrong section or suggesting it. But what I do want is for them to also contribute to the actual thread. What does that mean? Well it means just don't post "You've posted in the wrong section" then say nothing else at all.

Otherwise I may as well post in every thread I see that is in the wrong section and could be moved with: "You've posted in the wrong section." then don't say anything else at all.

Which is what I have been stating in most replies to this thread and others. Now what you could say if users did just say: "You've posted in the wrong section" then that could be considered pointless or covered by one of the other rules.

[GommeInc]

Which is what I have been stating in most replies to this thread and others. Now what you could say if users did just say: "You've posted in the wrong section" then that could be considered pointless or covered by one of the other rules.

Depends if you're using the Habbox Forum definition of "pointless". Saying "This is in the wrong forum" isn't pointless as the point they are conveying is that the thread is in the wrong forum. It's off-topic, but not pointless. It clearly violates a posting rule to just say that, and therefore you rely on the relevant rule (it's why the foreign languages rule was demolished). However, it definitely doesn't break the wannabe forum moderator rule, as helpfulness - no matter the strength - should be encouraged.

So in a thread saying "Where's the best place to get car insurance?" in the Discuss Anything forum, and there is a reply saying:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

The post should be left alone, as it's a statement of fact that the real forum should be "Tourism / Pets / Vehicles", and by saying that they are stating a minutely helpful statement AND posting something on-topic - advice.

If they didn't say anything useful, PM them. Don't bother editing the post as mod edits are incredibly ugly on forums and a bit too discouraging. Why flog an idiot in front of a crowd?

[FlyingJesus]

I don't mind if users want to tell others that they have posted in the wrong section or suggesting it. But what I do want is for them to also contribute to the actual thread. What does that mean? Well it means just don't post "You've posted in the wrong section" then say nothing else at all.

Might want to tell Chris then, since for some reason he's updated the rule to explicitly include any time that someone mentions a rule break regardless of other content

[xxMATTGxx]

Depends if you're using the Habbox Forum definition of "pointless". Saying "This is in the wrong forum" isn't pointless as the point they are conveying is that the thread is in the wrong forum. It's off-topic, but not pointless. It clearly violates a posting rule to just say that, and therefore you rely on the relevant rule (it's why the foreign languages rule was demolished). However, it definitely doesn't break the wannabe forum moderator rule, as helpfulness - no matter the strength - should be encouraged.

So in a thread saying "Where's the best place to get car insurance?" in the Discuss Anything forum, and there is a reply saying:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

The post should be left alone, as it's a statement of fact that the real forum should be "Tourism / Pets / Vehicles", and by saying that they are stating a minutely helpful statement AND posting something on-topic - advice.

If they didn't say anything useful, PM them. Don't bother editing the post as mod edits are incredibly ugly on forums and a bit too discouraging. Why flog an idiot in front of a crowd?

I have no problems with:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

In terms of mod edits and being ugly and stuff: I don't really see an argument for it and they don't really cause any issues.

---------- Post added 04-10-2012 at 05:47 PM ----------

Might want to tell Chris then, since for some reason he's updated the rule to explicitly include any time that someone mentions a rule break regardless of other content

I thought the rule update allowed it?

[mrwoooooooo]

from now on moderators should just leave richie alone or he'll kick up a fuss in feedback, instead of using the support tool.

[FlyingJesus]

The bit added was "You must not post a reply to tell another member that they have broken the rule, however if you find a thread which has already been posted then you MAY reply with a link to that thread however your post must also contain something which is relevant and on topic to the threads subject."

Which is essentially the complete opposite of what everyone agreed on, but with the clause that ought to be there existing only in reference to duplicate threads. Definitely could do with a fresh re-write